E 450 

. T37 

Copy 1 A 



SERMON 



MOSES' FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, 



PREACHED AT ASHLAND, MASS. 



5Cooemb*r 3, 1850. 



B V 

WILLIAM M. THAYER. 

PASTOR OF THE ORTHODOX CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH. 



PUBLISHED BY REQUEST, 



BOSTON: ' 
PRINTED BY CHARLES C. P. MOODY, 

Old Dickinson Office 52 Washinston Street. 

1850. 




Class^iT l+±_Q_ 



Book 



T3 



w 



A 



SERMON 



MOSES' FUGITIVE SLAVE BILE, 

PREACHED AT ASHLAND, MASS. 
November 3, 1850. 

BY 

WILLIAM M. THAYER. 

PASTOR OF THE ORTHODOX CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH. 



PUBLISHED BY REQUEST 



BOSTON: 
PRINTED BY CHARLES C. P. MOODY, 

Old Dickinson Office 52 Washington Street. 

1850. 






7 F f 6 6 



<• 

? 



*~. 



SERMON. 



" Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his 
master unto thee." — Dedteronomt 23: 15. 

The present is a crisis of thrilling interest. This 
the recent development of feeling in our social and 
national relations conspires to show. The land rings 
with excitement. From Maine to Louisiana, from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific, a tide of feeling swells like the 
waves of the troubled sea. All classes and conditions 
of men participate in it. The high and low, the rich 
and poor, the learned and unlearned, the bond and 
free — all feel the movings of unwonted sympathy. 
The laborer is appealed to by the sacredness of his 
rights, the statesman by the responsibilities of his high 
commission, the minister of justice by " the purity of 
his ermine," and the minister of religion by the sanctity 
of his calling, to feel, speak, act. Thousands aver that 
silence is unpardonable, and indifference is sin. And 
why this excitement ? How came we to such a crisis ? 
Politicians are out against Moses and the legislation of 
his God. Their decree has gone forth, that men shall 
deliver " unto his master the servant which is escaped 
from his master unto thee." This is the tidings that 
are borne on the wings of the wind to cause excitement 
from sea to sea. Sufficient cause for excitement this ! 
Our fathers, to settle a question that involved a similar 
principle, resorted to the musket and cannon. And yet 
our fathers' cause resulted from a wrong; less asroravat- 
ing than that which sends back the guiltless fugitive to 
his chains and tears. Theirs was simply to decide 
whether to submit to a paltry tax, — not whether they 



should be bought and sold as the cattle in their stalls. 
But the cause of the fleeing fugitive, whose only crime 



is being 



" guilty of a skin 

Not colored like our own," 



his cause is, whether he shall be robbed of his inaliena- 
ble rights, and submit to be treated, with his wife and 
children, as articles of merchandise ; — ■ whether he shall 
ever breathe the air of freedom, or wear the chains of 
perpetual servitude. If our fathers had a claim upon 
the sympathies of the world (and we think they had,) 
then the fugitive from a bondage, " one hour of which 
is fraught with more misery than ages of that which 
your fathers rose to rebellion to oppose," has a vastly 
better claim upon the hearts of all mankind. 

But, amid the general excitement, we witness two 
extremes in the expression of feeling. One class of 
persons would rise and show a forcible resistance to the 
law that sends back the slave, so fortunate as to escape 
from his master, to the clime of his sorrows. They 
would employ the bristling steel against the heartless 
slave-hunter, abroad upon an errand too base to be 
described. The other class would bow to the supremacy 
of law, right or wrong. They would aid " the hunter of 
human kind " in securing his prey. They would send 
back the man for whom the Saviour died as truly as 
for themselves, to the land where the story of a 
Saviour's love may not be told him. 

Regarding such conflicting views, the conscientious 
Christian inquires, what shall I do ? Which of the 
above named policies are right ? I answer, neither. 
Both are wrong ! And it becomes a subject of vast 
importance to decide upon the right principle of 
Christian action. For the question involves a principle 
eminently practical ; one which will frequently be 
tested, perhaps, generally in less important matters, in 
our future history. Remember, that it is not with the 
politician that we have to do, but with the Christian ; 
the man who has a high regard for the Constitution of 



his land, but a higher regard still for the moral Constitu- 
tion of God. We are not to brand our National Gov- 
ernment for enacting laws with as little moral sense as 
if no God were on the throne, as did infidel France. 
We are not to impugn any man's motive, nor reflect 
upon any party. Ours is a higher object — the relation 
of this subject to Christianity ; — whether he, who pro- 
fesses to be guided by the principles and precepts of 
the Gospel, can obey the law in question, and aid in 
sending back the fugitive to his bonds, and be innocent 
in the sight of God ? As the basis of my remarks, I 
have selected 

MOSES' FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, 

contained in the words of the text. And if it be in- 
quired, whether it is just to bring forth this obsolete 
statute from the archives of the Mosaic dispensation, it 
may be replied, that, although designed for the Hebrews 
alone, it is founded upon principles of justice, humanity, 
and truth, which are the same to-day as then. There are 
certain laws of right, affected by no time or circumstances 
— the same from eternity to eternity — changeless as 
their author — God. Such is justice, humanity, and truth. 
There is that which is just, and no power can make it 
unjust. There is that which is humane, and no power 
can make it inhuman. There is that which is truth, and 
no power can make it untruth. In other words, there is 
a something which God ordained to be the same 
in all ages, and we call it justice, humanity, truth. 
Of course, these principles were the same in the days of 
Moses as now, and the same now as then. It is in 
accordance with these just, humane, and righteous prin- 
ciples, that Moses commanded that the fugitive slave 
should not be returned to his bonds. So clear and 
decisive is honest conviction on this point, that, ho man 
can make himself believe that the great Jewish legis- 
lator acted upon any other principles. Even the slave- 
holder cannot believe that Moses acted otherwise than 
from regard to these immutable laws — justice, human- 
1* 



ity, truth. Hence, the reason of the law of Moses, in the 
text, is a reason existing still. The very fact, that, at 
this late day, we cannot read the text without associat- 
ing the notions of justice and humanity with it, shows 
that these principles are a part of our moral being — 
unchangeable. So that if the law of Moses had been 
published yesterday, and designed for all nations, the 
principles of moral right upon which it was based, could 
have been no different. It was morally right to pro- 
claim such a law then. It is so now. And if such a 
law is based upon an immutable moral right, then its 
opposite — the prcserd fugitive slave law — cannot be. 
Also, the text then implied three truths, sufficient for 
our purpose. (1.) It implied a wrong in slavery itself. 
Admit, as we are told, that the law protected only the 
fugitives from the heathen, it is still true, that it implied 
a wrong in slavery. If our National Legislature should 
enact such a law, proclaiming this land to be an asylum 
to all the fugitives from other lands, it would imply 
that they were escaping from a wrong. So did it three 
thousand years ago. Had Moses regarded the condition 
from which they were fleeing as just, and desirable, and 
good, would he not, as a righteous man, have directed 
them to return to their masters? Independent of the 
question whether slavery existed among the Hebrews, 
and why it existed, this single piece of Mosaic legisla- 
tion branded human bondage as a wrong. (2.) It im- 
plied that the slave had a right to his freedom. By this 
law, Moses presented inducements to slaves to escape 
from bondage. He really invited them to tiee to Pal- 
estine as a refuge from the oppressed, assuring them 
that there their shackles should never more bo riveted. 
Now, we cannot suppose, for a moment, that Moses, so 
regardful of truth, would have encouraged the slave to 
secure what he had no moral right to possess. This 
would have been to induce him to sin. (o.) It implied 
that the master had no moral right to withhold freedom 
from the slave — that he retained him in bondage un- 
justly. If the master had a right to the slave as his 



property, it would have been no ordinary offence for 
Moses to protect him, and thus deprive the master of 
his right. No righteous man could do this. Whatever 
slave-holders may think of Moses, in this particular, we 
have more' respect for the man than to believe he 
would be thus recreant to justice and truth. If slavery 
were wrong, then, and if the slave had a right to his 
freedom, and the master no right to withhold it, then, 
who can show, that the same is not true notv ? We grant 
that Moses lived many years ago, but his example is as 
bright as ever, and his words and acts as 'full of truth. 
God's ancient, chosen people could trust him, and so 
can we. 

Here, then, are reasons sufficient to render Moses' 
Fugitive Slave Law as good for our present purpose as 
if fresh from the Hebrew council-halls. Moses would 
not send back the fugitive, whom he greatly pitied, to 
the wrongs and cruelty of slavery. Not he. His heart 
was too full of love to God and man to be guilty of so 
base a deed. With Moses for our example, and his mo- 
del legislation for our guide, we proceed to give some 
reasons, why it is not consistent with Christianity to aid 
in delivering up the fugitive slave to his master. In 
order, however, to divest the mind of certain objections, 
and prepare it to consider, unprejudiced, the reasons we 
give, it may be necessary to state, briefly, the following 
five propositions: 

1. All admit, that instances may occur, in which civil 
law ought not to be obeyed. It so clearly conflicts with 
men's sense of justice and right, that they feel bound to 
disregard it. Such are laws that infringe upon the 
rights of conscience. Not a few of the revolutions, that 
have shattered in pieces despotic governments, have 
been the result of popular resistance to unrighteous 
laws restricting religious liberty. The church of Christ 
to-day is achieving the moral conquest of the world in 
opposition to numerous laws of the nations where her 
missions are sustained. And our fathers, to whom allu- 
sion has already been made, resisted unto blood a law 



8 

of the mother country, and we are accustomed to ap- 
plaud them for it. Hence there is a limit beyond which 
we may not go, and ought not to go, in our obedience 
to civil law. And where is that line of separation ? Just 
where the Apostles placed it, when, opposing a law of 
the land, they said, u we ought to obey God rather than men." 
This plainly teaches that, sometimes, obedience to civil 
law may be refused. This leads me to remark, 

2. There is a " Higher Law " than the civil code, to 
be first regarded. The Gospel recognizes two grounds 
of moral obligation. The first arises from " our duty to 
man as man, that is, on the ground of the relation 
which men sustain to each other ; the second is, our 
duty to man as a creature of God, that is, on the ground 
of the relation which we all sustain to God. On the 
latter ground, many things become our duty that would 
not be on the former." * Hence, when the fugitive 
from bondage presents himself at our gate for assistance, 
if we could exclude from the mind the latter ground of 
moral obligation, and look upon him only in his relation 
to man, as a fugitive from justice, we might refuse our 
sympathy, and assume hardihood enough to send him 
back to his chains. But when we regard our relation 
to him as a " creature of God," having the Divine image 
stamped upon his soul, — a subject of Divine law, — we 
are bound to treat him as a brother, to sympathize with 
him in his wrongs, to show him compassion, and in love 
to render him needful aid. But whether this reasoning 
be correct, or not, it is true, in general, that the laws of 
Christianity have jurisdiction over all other laws. We 
all feel, that, in whatever community our lot is cast, we 
are responsible to God first, to man last, — primarily to 
the Divine, and secondarily to human government. "We 
might quote many passages of scripture upon this point ; 
but the one already quoted is as good as a thousand, — 
" we ought to obey God rather than men." It is an explicit 
recognition of a " Higher Law," to be first obeyed. 

* Wayland's Moral Science, p. 215. 



Each man is to be his own judge. Whenever he con- 
scientiously believes a civil law conflicts with the Divine, 
he must obey the latter. He can obey but one. It is 
proper and christian, that he obey God rather than men. 

3. The slave is a man ! I mean, that, in the light of 
Christianity he is a man. It is true, that human law 
says, " Slaves shall be claimed, held, taken, reputed, and 
adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in the hands of 
their owners and possessors, and their executors, admin- 
istrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and 
purposes whatsoever."^ But recollect, there is a 
" Higher Law," and that says no such thing. The Gos- 
pel excludes no one from the claim to humanity because 
of color. It recognizes the being who possesses a mind 
and a soul as an intelligent, responsible, immortal man ! 
This leads me to remark, 

4. Man has no moral right to claim property in 
his fellow-man. Some have the impression, that the 
master has a moral title to the slave, because he 
has paid for, or inherited him, and therefore we are 
obligated to restore him. But the same persons con- 
tend that it would be shamefully wrong to make a 
slave of a free colored man. What is this but denying 
the original right to possess property in man ? And if 
ever wrong it is wrong still. It seems almost trifling to 
argue a point so evident as this. But admit, for a mo- 
ment, that the slaveholder has a moral right to make 
merchandise of a man. If he has a moral rio;ht to such 
property, then you have, and all mankind have. Our 
moral rights are the same, whether we are Americans, 
Europeans, Asiatics, or Africans. Hence the slave can 
morally possess property in his master as rightfully as 
his master can in him. Whether the act of paying 
money for him can destroy that original right, you can 
very easily determine. Remember, when we look upon 
a slave in the light of Christianity we are to regard his 
moral rights, — himself the responsible owner of his own 

* Law of South Carolina. 



10 

body and soul. But it is inquired still, do we not de- 
prive the slaveholder of that which he purchased, if we 
refuse to send back his slave ? What then shall we do ? 
Do ? Do as reason bids us in a thousand other instances- 
If a thief disposes of stolen goods to one person, and 
he disposes of the same to the second, and the second to 
a third, and so on, until the property is purchased by 
yourself, innocently, we are not to inquire how you are 
to be re-paid when the original owner presents his claim 
for the goods. Your claim is upon the person of whom 
you purchased, and not upon the propert} 7- . And the 
person of whom you purchased has claim only upon the 
person of w'hom he purchased. And thus we trace it 
back to the original claimant, no one having a title to 
the property save him. And thus it is with the slave- 
holder. His claim is not upon the slave, but upon the 
person of whom he bought him, and the claim of the 
latter upon the person of whom he purchased him ; 
and thus on, back to the time when the first sto- 
len property in a slave was assumed, (for the first 
slaves in our land were stolen from their native soil.) 
No person has a just claim upon him, save the original 
claimant — himself. So that when the fugitive slave 
presents himself at our doors, we are not obligated to 
ask how his master shall be re-paid. 

It may be added, also, that the natural aversion of 
the human heart to this idea of property, in man, is 
so great, that such a law as I have quoted, is necessary 
to make them property in the eye of popular senti- 
ment. That law declares that slaves shall be regarded 
"chattels personal," to all "intents, constructions and pur- 
jjoses, whatsoever." It implies, that, by general consent, 
they are not property, but for certain reasons they shall 
be so regarded, whatever be the "construction" of men. 
And the present Fugitive Slave Law. implies the same 
thing. It is not necessary that Congress should enact 
such a law with reference to cattle and swine, because 
the right to property in them is universally acknowl- 
edged. Wherever they stray, the owner can claim 



11 

them. So that the present law implies that fugitive 
slaves are not rightful property, and cannot be claimed 
as such without a law enacted to this end. If there 
were in the hearts of men an inherent recognition of 
the title to property in negroes, as in cattle, there would 
be no more need of legislating for " runaway slaves " 
than for runaway oxen. And yet more, (and I dwell 
upon this point because so many feel that slaveholders 
have a moral title to property in man) when slaves are 
inherited it does not alter the case When I see a man 
having inherited property upon which his ancestors had 
no just claim, I certainly shall not conclude that ^6 has a 
rightful claim upon it. A false claim in them, cannot 
become right in passing over to him. The same is true 
of inherited slaves. And shall the slaveholder, when 
his eyes are opened to see that his title is not good and 
righteous, be held guiltless before God, if he persists in 
retaining his possession of human beings ? Surely not. 
A prevailing idea seems to be that the longer the mas- 
ter retains a slave the better is his title. But the 
Christian is guilty if he reasons thus. In the light 
of the gospel, the longer a man deprives his fel- 
low of his rights and immunities, the greater is his obli- 
gation to compassionate and bless him. The longer he 
has wronged him, the more zealously should he hasten 
to atone for the past. 

5. A statement of the fugitive's case as we are to con- 
sider it. Mens' minds are frequently prejudiced by the 
association of words and phrases. So here they have 
been accustomed to associate with the terms " runaway" 
and "fugitive " some dark deed of shame. When the 
terms fall upon the ear, they think of a fugitive from 
justice — a guilty man escaping from the penalty of vi- 
olated law, eluding the grasp of commissioned officers — 
a free man when he ought to be in irons. But not so 
with the slave. The mind should be divested of all 
such associations while contemplating this subject. A 
runaway slave ! a fdgitive slave ! ! He is not a man of 
crime. He is not a runaway because he is guilty of 



12 

unhallowed deeds. He is fleeing from the land of op- 
pression, where the very air is vocal with the cries of 
suffering liberty. He is escaping from a land of horrid 
sights and fearful sounds — the sight of his wife, torn 
forever from his humble household, and his daughter, 
the unwilling victim of her master's brutal lusts; and 
the sound of clanking chains, and ringing whips, and 
wailing hearts. Yes ! he is running from the sight 
of tears and blood, accursed shackles, and partings in- 
describable. He is absconding from a master who has no 
moral right 

" To buy and sell, to barter, whip, and hold 
In chains, a being of celestial make." 

And he comes to us — an unoffending man — and asks 
to be delivered from injustice, inhumanity, and w r oe. 
He asks for life, for liberty, for love. He implores us 
by the truth, that he is a " creature of God," pointing 
us to the seal of immortality upon his soul, to treat him 
as a crushed and injured brother, with whom we shall 
<tand to give account at the judgment-seat of Christ. 
Shall our sympathies be moved ? Humanity answers, 
yes ! Divinity from the "great white throne," answers 
yes! ! Shall we lift a finger to aid in riveting again his 
chains? Conscience answers, xn ! Religion, from her 
seat of purity, answers, No ! ! God, in the eternal prin- 
ciples of truth revealed, answers, no!! And this we 
proceed to establish. 

I. By aiding to restore a slave to bondage, according 
to there quirement of the present law, we shock our sense 
if Christian propriety and duty. All of us have some- 
thing within — an inherent moral sense, we may call 
it — that suggests what belongs to Christian propriety 
and duty. This arises from the possession of certain 
intellectual gifts in their connection with conscience. 
And for this reason we suppose, that God designed it 
should be consulted — should not be violated. — 
That this moral sense of the community is dreadfully 
shocked by the passage of the Fugitive Slave Bill is too 



13 

evident to need proof Few persons are found who 
attempt to defend it. The holiest men and women 
are shocked the most. Nations, that long since broke 
the fetters of the bondman, — even the semi- civilized — 
are hissing. And the fugitive from bonds knows it. 
He knows that the sympathies of the mass, and espec- 
ially of Christian people, are with him ; and therefore 
he is bold to make a manly resistance. Did he feel 
that the moral sense of the community was against 
him, he would not dare resist his pursuer. Thus clear 
is it, that the swelling tide of Christian sympathy in 
the land is for the slave. There is, also, another devel- 
opment that tests the character of this moral sense. 
It is this. We read of a fugitive's "hair-breadth 
escapes," in his journey toward the north star ; and 
when safe, as he thinks, on the soil of free New, Eng- 
land, the slave-hunter meets him by the way. At once 
the slave puts himself in the atitude of self defence, 
and by violent exertion escapes for his life. Now when 
the true-hearted Christian reads a tale like this, he can- 
not help rejoicing, and bidding that fugitive success. 
He cannot force himself to believe that the slave has 
done a wrong. His heart is with him. His religion is 
with him. 

But put the case as it may occur in our own midst. 
You meet a colored stranger in the highway, hungry, 
weary, and hunted. He opens to you his heart. He 
tells you that he is a fugitive from slavery — from 
wrongs 

" That Mercy, with a bleeding heart, 
Weeps when she sees inflicted on a beast" 

Long since he made his escape — ten, perhaps twenty 
years ago. He tells you, that, in yonder city, he has a 
family — a faithful wife, and beloved children — dear 
to him as your own are to you, and perhaps dearer 
still, since in his isolated condition, he has fewer friends. 
But now he is hunted, " like the patridge on the moun- 
tain ; " for the slave-catcher is after him. Affrighted, he 
2 



14 

has left his home, and his " heart's fondest treasure," 
not knowing whether a sight of the loved ones will 
again gladden his heart. He implores your aid. He 
would make you his friend. But here the Fugitive 
Slave Law meets you, and, if necessity demand, 
compels you to aid in delivering the suppliant to 
his master — to tear him from his family and put 
him in bonds. It compels you to refuse the exercise 
of brotherly love, to withhold your sympathies, to be 
steeled against compassion, and, in all your conduct 
towards him become as much unlike the Saviour as you 
can. For how unlike the kindness, and sympathy, and 
love, that glowed in His heart toward injured and suffer- 
ing innocence. I need not say, that, the demand to 
obey such a law, shocks our sense of Christian pro- 
prity and duty. 

II. By sending the fugitive back to his wrongs, 
we do with him ivhat we have no moral right to do with 
ourselves. The true, Christian idea of our talents, influ- 
ence, time, wealth, all we have and are — is, that they 
belong to God. God requires that all our powers and 
possessions be devoted to Him ; and we cannot inno- 
cently place ourselves in a relation where this may not 
be the result. But certainly, if we cannot do this with 
ourselves, we cannot do it with our fellow-man ; — we 
cannot assist to put the slave where he will not be per- 
mitted to devote the fruits of his physical, intellectual, 
or moral powers to God. The slave himself incurs 
guilt if he voluntarily enters such a relation. No mat- 
ter if he loves slavery. As a moral agent he has no 
right to put himself into a relation, where God will be 
robbed of the fruits of his toil — where the eternal sal- 
vation of himself and family will be put in jeopardy. 
This, alone, is a sufficient reason for the Christian to 
refuse assistance in capturing, and delivering up the 
bondman, who has been so fortunate as to escape from 
servitude. 

III. We subject him to evils which he does not deserve. 
Both civil and divine law approve the sentiment, that 



15 

" man is to be regarded innocent, until he is proved 
guilty ; " and thence originates the view, that, as is his 
guilt, so should be the misery to which he is subjected. 
Crime and punishment, sin and misery, are consociated 
ideas. We never think of innocence and evil in con- 
junction. Hence, when we behold a stranger subjected 
to suffering, our first enquiry is, " What evil hath he 
done?" And if we had never heard of slavery, and 
should witness the slave-hunter, when he captures the 
unfortunate negro, we should inquire earnestly, of what 
is he guilty? We do not expect that man will be 
subjected to sufferings, unless he deserves it. But who 
assumes that the fugitive slave deserves the wrongs 
of Southern bondage? And unless the Christian does 
feel that the slave deserves to be continued a slave, he 
violates his own convictions of justice, his obligations 
to the man, and his higher obligations to God, if he be- 
comes in the least degree, accessory to the renewal of 
his bonds. 

IV. If we send back the slave, we are required to do 
it really because he is black. Other reasons may be 
offered, but it can be made to appear that this is abso- 
lutely the only reason. In other nations, slavery has 
never made the distinction of color a reason for reduc- 
ing men to bondage. " There was no one who the 
chances of fortune or war might not one day or other, 
reduce to bondage. But with us, complexion has been 
made the criterion for determining the capacity of a 
human being for freedom."* This cannot be denied. 
The slaves in our land were made so, and are continued 
so, wholly because their skin is darker than our own. 
If two strangers, the one black and the other white, 
were arrested in our streets as fugitives, our first im- 
pression would be, that the negro might be a slave, but 
the claim upon the white man is false. The truth is, 
it is color, and color only, that first oppressed and now 



* See Report of Committee on Slavery to the Convention of Congregational 
Ministers of Massachusetts, p. 1 2. 



1G 

keeps in chains the three millions in our land. And 
out of the horrid system to which color has reduced 
them, sprung the Fugitive Slave Bill ! Color had as 
much to do in passing that, as in enacting the law that 
regards them as " chattels personal." But can the 
Christian man, for a moment, think of sustaining a law 
that is based upon such injustice. Never will lie, who 
obeys the Gospel, send back his brother-man to hopeless 
servitude, for such a reason, until he can find in 
the Scriptures a distinction of inalienable rights 
among men based upon distinction of color. If he 
does, he acts in the face of that truth, " And hath made 
of one blood, all the nations of men for to dwell on all the 
face of the earth." 

V. That the Christian cannot aid, innocently, in de- 
livering up the slave to his master, is evident from the 
fact, that he could not conscientiously ask the blessing 
of God to rest upon his effort. In other words, he would 
shrink from making it a subject of prayer. Whatever 
is good and true meets with the approval of God. He 
invites us to bring every innocent subject to the throne 
of grace. For all that is not sinful, God can bless. There 
are certain things we should not dare to present at the 
mercy-seat. We should not presume to ask God to 
bless us in going to the theatre, or to the gaming board. 
The sabbath-breaker would not dare to ask God to 
smile upon his unhallowed deeds. The vender of 
strong drinks would expect his tongue to palsy, if he 
should present his cause to the Hearer of prayer. And 
we think that the system of slavery, and the slave- 
holder's claim upon the hunted fugitive, does not 
enter into his requests at the morning and evening 
sacrifice. No! AVe do not believe that the Christian 
slaveholder could conscientiously ask God's blessing 
to rest upon the slave-catcher, that he might bring 
back the fugitive, thirsting for liberty, to his bondage. 
Think what a prayer that would be! "Lord, without 
Thee we can do nothing. It is in vain to hunt for the 
slave, who has fled from his chains and unrewarded 



17 

toil, to a land of freedom, without Thine aid. Bestow 
Thy blessing and guidance upon him who hath gone to 
search for the wanderer in the north. Give him shrewd- 
ness to plan, artfulness in executing, and direct him to 
the hiding-place of his victim, panting to go free. 
Crown all his efforts with success, and speedily may 
he return the captive to the doom of his shackles and 
the rule of the whip. We ask it in the name of Him 
who died to save us all. Amen." That must be the 
import of his prayer before God. But whether the 
slave-holder could make this a subject of prayer or not, 
I know, brethren, if I should pray in this desk, that the 
fugitive might be captured and sent back to a hope- 
less bondage, that your feelings would be inexpressibly 
shocked. But if we cannot pray for the capture of the 
slave, we cannot innocently aid in delivering him to 
the slave-hunter. 

VI. By assisting to capture the fugitive we become 
accessory to the violation of divine commands and pre- 
cepts. Time would fail me to enumerate the many 
commands and precepts bearing upon this subject. A 
few only can be named. (1.) We are commanded 
"to preach the Gospel to every ercature." In obedi- 
ence to this, our missionaries are abroad in the earth, 
proclaiming the glad news of salvation in almost every 
clime. But if it is our duty to " preach the Gospel to 
every creature," it must be our duty to provide them 
with the facilities for acquiring a knowledge of it ; or, 
at least, it is our duty not to place any obstacle in the 
way of their attaining that knowledge. But when we 
send a slave back to Southern bondage, we are placing 
him in a condition where it is more difficult to reach 
with the Gospel, than it is to reach the benighted 
Hindoo. The gates of heathen nations were never 
closed with stronger bolts than is the South to the 
movements of a successful mission to the slaves. 
Hence, every tithe of influence or aid to send them 
back to slavery, is throwing obstacles in their way to 
learn the truths of life ; and thus we become accessory 
2* 



IS 

to the violation of the command of God. (2.) The 
marriage relation is to be regarded sacred, and man is 
warned in the most solemn manner, not to put asunder 
what God hath joined together. But we know that 
slavery rends these sacred bonds — that it hesitates to 
break these ties no more than we to snap a spider's 
web. The husband has no security that his wife shall 
be his a single year. And he absolutely knows, that at 
any moment, she may become the victim of his mas- 
ter's passions, set on fire of hell. And when we lend 
a particle of influence to return the slave to his bonds, 
we do it in the face of this startling knowledge. We 
deliberately aid in supporting a system that sets at 
naught the divine law of marriage. We become 
accessory to the violation of that sacred contract. 
(3.) The same is true of the parental and filial rela- 
tions. The child is morally obligated to obey the 
parent and the parent to support and train the child — 
to rear him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
But in Southern slavery the child cannot obey the 
parent. His first obligation is to the master. Neither 
can the parent train the child. His government over 
him is exceedingly limited, if, indeed, it can be called 
government. He can neither clothe, nor feed, nor own 
his dearest child. Not even can he buy his coffin, nor 
select the spot for his grave. And beside, at any 
moment, the relation may be sundered. His children 
may be parted and scattered over the "land of tears.'* 
When we send a child and parent back to slavery, we 
put them where it is impossible that they discharge 
their duties to each other. We cannot do it without 
incurring guilt. (4.) The slave, as we, has a right to 
worship God. We need not quote Scripture to estab- 
lish the " Rights of Conscience." The sentiment is 
deeply engraven upon our hearts. Religious freedom 
men will have. For this, revolution treads upon the 
heel of revolution. For this, men suffer, bleed, and 
die. The story of the Pilgrims has touched the heart- 
strings of the world. The Christian fortitude of the 



19 

exiles from Madeira, forsaking all to be free in Christ 
upon our shores, has stirred deep sympathy in every 
breast. We know and feel that all men, black or 
white, should have 

" Freedom to worship God." 

But the slave does not enjoy it, unrestricted. He can- 
not worship as he desires. He cannot assume all the 
responsibilities of an immortal soul. He is not privi- 
leged to refuse to do wrong and choose to do right. 
He is not permitted to regard the peculiar obligations 
of religion. We send him back, if we send him back 
at all, with all these facts before us. We become acces- 
sory to his deprivation of the " Eights of Conscience." 
VII. By delivering up the fugitive, we directly 
violate two very familiar commands. (1.) il Love thy 
neighbor as thyself" Our neighbor is any person whom 
we may benefit, no matter where he lives, nor what 
his condition. The precept relates to all men ; and 
teaches that we should cherish as tender regard for the 
right that the humblest individual possesses over the 
means of happiness which God has bestowed upon 
him, as we do for our own. Now, every person can 
see at once, that if the spirit of this command were 
universally practiced, slavery could not exist another 
day. There would be no such thing as a Fugitive 
Slave Bill. And can we doubt for a moment, that if 
we really cherished the spirit of this precept, and prac- 
ticed upon it, that we should be compelled to refuse 
aid in capturing a runaway slave? For one, I know 
that I love myself too well for bonds and cruelty. And 
the precept bids me love the slave as well. (2.) " What- 
soever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
them" The meaning of this passage is too obvious to 
need comment. Doubtless God designed that each 
person should decide for himself its application in any 
particular case. So that when the Christian is called 
upon to aid in capturing the fugitive, he has only to 
determine, whether he would wish the same to be 



20 

done to himself, were he escaping from unrighteous 
bondage. A conscientious decision, according to this 
instruction, is as good for him, before God, as a direct 
revelation. We may not apply the precept for each 
other. But for myself were I a fugitive, and my skin 
as black as ebony, I should not want a brother man to 
aid in forging chains for me. The precept bids me act 
accordingly toward the injured negro. What though, 
in some respects, he is inferior to ourselves? Shall we 
take advantage of him because of this ? God forbid. 
Christianity rather bids us love him more, and lift him 
from his degradation. 

We have thus presented some of the reasons why 
the Christian should not lend his influence to apply the 
Fugitive Slave Law; and they show the opposition 
of the law to the Divine requirements. Says Rev. Al- 
bert Barnes : " The law of God ordains that every man 
who can secure his freedom, by escape from bondage, 
has a right to it, and should be protected in that right ; 
the Constitution and laws of the United States suppose, 
that he has no such right, and that all the authority of 
the civil arm is to be employed in riveting upon him 
again the fetters of bondage. It would be impossible 
to conceive of laws, more directly repugnant to each 
other, than, in this case, are the law of God, and the 
law of this Christian land." 

VIIT. The question returns, what then shall be 
done ? Shall we rise, en masse, and resist forcibly the 
application of this law? This would not be christian. 
It is better to suffer wrong, than to do wrong. Vio- 
lence would involve the nation in a scene of carnage 
unparalleled. " Leave, I beseech you," says Judge Jay, 
"the pistol and the bowie-knife to Southern ruffians 
and their Northern mercenaries. That this law will 
lead to bloodshed, I take it for granted ; but let it be the 
blood of the innocent, not of the guilty. If any thing 
can rouse the torpid conscience of the North, it will be 
our streets stained with human blood, shed by the 
slave-catchers." This is Christian counsel. Christian 



21 

magistrates and other officers, and private Christians, 
too, can refuse to aid the slave-hunter, when bidden, 
and abide the consequences .* And this is their bound- 
en duty, be the penalty what it may. They should 
" obey God rather than men," though it cost them in- 
carceration, and even death. They can also employ 
every lawful means to hasten the day, when, without 
shedding of blood, the law may be repealed. Without 
distinction of party, they can unite, heart and hand, in 
a great moral movement, to erase from the statute- 
book of the nation this disgraceful record. This would 
be christian. This is duty. 

But the objector inquires, Does not your doctrine 
tend to the subversion of all law ? I answer, it tends 
to subvert only unrighteous law. The idea, that refus- 
ing to obey a law which conflicts with our relations to 
God is wrongful, belongs to a darker age than this. 
There is an important distinction to be made in this 
respect. As we have seen, our first responsibilities are 
to God. We have no moral right to yield obedience 
to individual or nation, when such obedience interferes 
with the claims of God. All laws, that would thus 
compel us to disregard God, ought to be nullified. 
This grand and righteous distinction ought to be pro- 
claimed to the race, and practiced by them. The sen- 
timent ought to be the alpha and omega, the beginning 
and the end, of all human legislation. 

But, it is inquired again, would not this policy, in 
such excitement, tend to the dissolution of the Union? 
This is a secondary inquiry. What is Christian obliga- 
tion in the matter ? is the first question to be settled. 
" Duty is ours, the consequences belong to God ! " — 
Not that we should be heedless, and pay no regard at 
all to consequences ; but that, when duty is clear, we 
should fearlessly meet it, leaving the issue with God. 
And, beside, if the Union cannot stand upon the prin- 
ciples of justice, humanity, and truth, it had better be 

* Or, civil officers can resign their trusts rather than execute the law. 



22 

rent asunder and scattered to the winds. One thing is 
certain, that, if righteousness is not its basis, it will 
share the fate of the Republics of Greece and Rome, 
and sink to ruin. For God has given us line upon 
line in his Word, to teach that righteousness alone can 
be the stability of a nation. And he has recorded ex- 
ample upon example, to illustrate the inevitable doom 
of governments, that persist to legislate in oppostion to 
Divine laws. 

IX. Since the case of Onesimus, who was sent 
back by Paul to Philemon, may be revolved by some 
minds as an objection to what has been said, I would 
remark upon that, (].#) there is no evidence that 
Onesimus was not a hired servant instead of a slave. 
(2.) Admitting that he was a slave, Paul used no com- 
pulsion to send him back. He was at liberty to go or 
stay, as he pleased. So that, as Barnes remarks, " this 
passage should not be referred to, to prove that we 
ought to send back runaway slaves to their former mas- 
ters, against their own consent." (3.) But there is very 
good evidence that he was not a slave, or if he had been, 
that Paul designed he should be one no longer. For he 
not only permitted him to act his pleasure in returning, 
but he gave him a " letter," pleading for his kind recep- 
tion. He exhorted Philemon to receive him, " not now 
as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, espe- 
cially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in 
the flesh and in the Lord." Now admitting that he 
was a slave before, this language plainly teaches, that 
he ought not longer to be so regarded, but as " a brother 
beloved" — i% not as a servant" or slave. Philemon cer- 
tainly could not treat him as a Christian brother and 
make him a slave. So that if the principles of Paul's 
Fugitive Slave Bill (and it does not diner materi- 
ally from that of Moses\) were applied to the relation 
of master and slave, it would lead to the speedy and 
utter extinction of slavery. Only let the masters treat 

* See Barnes' Commentary on Philemon. 



23 

them " not as slaves" but as " brothers beloved" and 
they would not be troubled with Northern "anarchists" 
u abolitionists" and "fanatics." For the slave would 
then be equal to his master in the enjoyment of his in- 
alienable rights — " life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- 
piness ;" and Congressmen, at their next assembling, 
would participate in a thanksgiving festivity in view of 
the speedy repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, as they 
did after its deplorable enactment. 

1. We learn who are " anarchists " in any nation. If 
it be true, that the principles of justice, humanity, and 
truth must be constituent elements in civil government 
in order to render it enduring, then they who would 
exclude these fundamental principles, are the " anar- 
chists" For they are directly sapping the foundation of 
successful legislation. They are sowing the seeds of 
ruin. While they, who resist the enactment of laws 
that conflict with righteousness and truth, are averting 
from the nation impending doom. They are pursuing 
the only method to transmit the blessings of a pure and 
lasting government to their posterity. Then it is readi- 
ly seen, where the charge of " anarchists" with refer- 
ence to the Fugitive Slave Bill, belongs. 

2. To be a skive-catcher is exceedingly wicked. If the 
law itself is a gross violation of the law of God, then he 
who volunteers to execute it is sinning with a high 
hand. To be a slaveholder is sin enough. 

" I would not have a slave to till my ground, 
To carry me, to fan me while I sleep, 
And tremble when I wake, for all the wealth 
That sinews bought and sold have ever earned. 
No ! dear as freedom is, and in my heart's 
Just estimation prized above all price, 
I had much rather be myself the slave, 
And wear the bonds, than fasten them on him." 

But, black as is the curse that rests upon the " trade 
in men," blacker yet is that which rests on him who 
can hunt a slave, just settled, with his thriving family, 
upon a spot of freedom's birthright, earned by his own 
hard toil, — to tear him from his home, when his soul is 



24 

so full of joy to be free, and bear him back, steeled 
agaisnt his cries of agony, to the miseries of accursed 
thraldom. 

Finally, amid such thrilling excitement — the tri- 
umphs of the evil, and the disappointments of the good 
— we may take courage from the recollection of the 
past. For it is no new event that "frameth mischief 
by a law'' And time has clearly illustrated, that all 
such enactments are opposed to the rapid march of 
Providence, and are therefore comparatively vain. The 
law, so recently enacted, is opposing that spirit of pro- 
gress and that growing love of liberty, that has already 
driven slavery from almost every nation of the earth. 
It is more than half a century behind the career of free- 
dom as now advancing through the world. Divine 
Providence is thus far in advance of Southern views of 
progress, justice, and brotherhood. And we may rest 
assured that its wheels, in their ceaseless roll, will never 
be retarded by a policy that already lingers behind in 
the distance of fifty or a hundred years. 




I 



9 *9Zl£8 noo 



J S i^ NO0dOAa V Hfln 





Mi 



< 



